July 18, 2011
A Haiku in Response to the Vendor Colloquium "Action Plan" Draft
I invite you to submit your comments on the Vendor Colloquium Action Plan draft by July 15. -- Margie Maes, AALL Vendor Liaison (quoting from the multiple AALL listserv broadcasts -- oops, almost wrote "spam" -- dated July 6, 2011).
So ... did you respond or write it off as an intergalactic waste of time?
Inspired by the emerging trend in haiku law blog posts, this is how I would have responded had I not thought AALL's latest statement of hallow words was so devoid of substance by failing to address the real world as in big picture issues of instituional buyer-members any effort to respond was just an utterly useless activity. This conclusion, after reading the specious string of characters called the "draft action" plan. My response in 17 syllables:
Partners in estoppel
aspire for cash,
pay invoices, pay dues
Solving the Secret to Intergalactic Success, AALL-Style. The first part of the two part so-called "action plan" ranges from the great abyss "goal" of "Reinforce[ing] our commitment to the Fair Business Practices Guide" (and even wasting time to revise these unenforcable words by way of an action step to revise the Guide) to such minutiae like "Identif[ing] invoicing best practices, including critically important elements of an invoice."
Really? Is this fundamental to really transforming the institutional buyer-vendor relationship? Even CRIV-Lite can address those Munchkin-land matters. Oops, perhaps not.
The second part of the so-called "action plan" (note to readers, I'm reminded of the Stalinist 5-year economic plans and associated propaganda) comes from the "realization" that AALL officialdom doesn't know how to communicate with its members. Dah.
This is actually a step in the right direction since I'm not all that sure the Old Guard wanted to waste its time by communicating with its members. Of course, this communications thing really has nothing to do with addressing the vendor-institutional buyer relationship that the membership spent $27K to conduct behind closed doors for the Vendor Colloquium.
My bad, there is actually a third part: "Other Issues to be Developed for Future Consideration"
Collaborate with vendors on effective training programs
Address issues related to the open access movement
Establish a format and rotation for future colloquia
Ah, well what's spending $27K among "partners." Can you say "diversion." [JH]